“Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.” (my emphasis)

Were there such differences, is there an annex to the report and if so, where is it to be found?

We ordinary folk cannot navigate the IPCC paths so well as you participants.

regards Geoff S.

—– Original Message —–

From: David Karoly

To: Geoff Sherrington

Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:54 PM

Subject: Re: IPCC paperwork

Hi,

Thank you for your interest in the IPCC process. The document that you have attached is the final approval document confirming that I considered that the author team for Chapt 9 of WGI of the IPCC AR4 afforded appropriate consideration of all review comments on multiple reviews of their chapter.

There were numerous other communications, including working papers, drafts and email messages (that are not publicly available) leading to the final approved chapter and detailed responses to the review comments, which are also available.

A dreary subject, but in your participation with the IPCC did you submit any working papers, clarifications, work that was to be completed then forwarded, etc, or is the attached the sole document and commentary that you used to attest to your satisfaction with Chapter 9 of the 4th Assessment Report?

This seems a rote report, essentially similar to some 60 others I have seen, but markedly different to a handful where substantial comments were appended for action. Is that how consensus was achieved?

Regards

Geoff Sherrington
Scientist.

p.s

I ask because of IPCC rules that say in part (these from WG2 directions)-

Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.

Review Editors must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel and where appropriate, will be requested to attend Sessions of the Working Group and of the IPCC to communicate their findings from the review process and to assist in finalising the Summary for Policymakers, Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports and Synthesis Reports.

Is the assertion of unavailability in

numerous other communications, including working papers, drafts and email messages (that are not publicly available)

applicable to the public, or are the papers open to certain other IPCC authors?

So says Christopher Conder, the man from the Ministry, replying to my letter to the Rt Hon Hillary Benn, the British Cabinet Minister responsible for Climate Change Policy. He also said,

‘I can confirm that I am replying in my official capacity as a Defra official and as such represent the views of the Government. You are of course free to quote my response in any publication.’

When I had got hold of the Review Editors’ reports, I had written to Hilary Benn at DEFRA to ask if “any Minister or official of HMG has studied the working papers of the latest IPCC, 2007 Working Group I (WGI) assessment reports?”

I have put my original letter to Mr Benn and the reply, just received from Christopher Conder here so you can judge the level of the discussion we have to deal with in the UK. Once again the ‘hockey stick’ doesn’t matter but its ‘still valid anyway’.
For completeness I have also put up an earlier letter from another Minister at DEFRA, Phil Woolas, which is referred to in the other letters. Phil Woolas had written to my MP who had sent him a copy of my Energy and Environment paper ‘Bias and Concealment’. Two points to note in his letter. One is how he justifies the Briffa deletions and the other is the justification for the IPCC’s refusal to enforce disclosure of data that its studies rely upon and which Steve had asked for.

]]>
By: PaulM https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/01/ipcc-review-editors-comments-online/#comment-142321
Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:38:48 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960#comment-142321May I put in a plug here for the thread I started on the message board,List of errors, distortion and exaggeration in IPCC AR4.
For example it would be great if Steve could write a paragraph summarizing the misrepresentation of his work.
Or Follow-The-Money’s remarks about ice.
Or a summary of how review comments were handled.
]]>
By: Peter Martin https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/01/ipcc-review-editors-comments-online/#comment-142320
Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:57:15 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960#comment-142320The idea of a cap and trade in emissions, of SO2 , was pioneered by the US government in the 1990 clean air act. See: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085
Canada, who were arguably the chief beneficiary of the reduction in SO2 pollution also joined in the scheme.

The results were spectacularly successful. So, although there are bound to be problems in the operation of larger CO2 scheme, the US and Canadian experience with S02 proves that they aren’t insurmountable.

Following on from what you say, he is still trying to defend the press release at RC. I seem to remember that when Stainforth was interviewed as part of GGWS he took a far more diplomatic line, admitting that lesson’s should be learned form this fiasco.

Is having someone who is prepared to defend the indefensible, and apparently incapable of admitting to a mistake, the wrong person to have as Review Editor on Chapter 10, or the the perfect person?